An issue that comes up every now and then is that there are cases and places
where a creative spec redefines a macro that rpm considers internal, with
varying results, side-effects and surprises to both the packager and rpm. There
should be a way for rpm to protect its internal macros from getti
> The idea of aligning cpio metadata is very interesting. I can see how it'd
> help initramfs building speed tremendously.
>
> As I understand it, RPM is pretty different: the main difference is that
> we're trying (fairly hard) not to change the normal format of rpm as found on
> mirrors for n
when this feature will be available on rpm package ?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1340930999
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
is not well explained IMO it should have explicit write without-counterpart
doesn't work
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1340930165
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Me
> One way to fix this could be extending bcond_with and bcond_without to
> %undefine the with_ macro in the else case. That way the defaults could be
> overwritten by later lines. This sounds a bit like a bad feature to advertise
> to packagers but may be ok for this.
yeah that is other problem
Firstly, i packed all the files in the main directory 1, and then extracted
them to a new directory 2;
Secondly, i added one file in the main directory 1 and pack them again, then
extracted them to a new directory 3;
the same statically linked library file in directory 2 and directory 3 is not
In the latest version, the RPM file installation is reconstructed. Can you
confirm whether the latest version involves this problem or provide detailed
reproduction steps.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1458#issuecomme
